Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-07-2016, 08:27 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 5,065,257 times
Reputation: 5036

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
in most states any rent stabilization programs include big tax hits to the local tax revenue . there are all kinds of tax incentives that go along with agreeing to have rents governed by a board and politics .

the local taxes everyone pays has to make up for those cuts in the budget .

without incentives no one would ever be a landlord . i would never take a job where i couldn't earn market wages . if you want to cap a landlords income with no compensation how about having your own income capped too .

50% of all the housing in nyc is stabilized . but that number is dropping yearly .

after landlords were duped by being told rent stabilization was only to prevent rent gouging and they would always get fair market rents most private buildings went co-op here . the rents were held artificially low for years as the politicians used rent stabilization as a political pawn .

once the original tenant is out the apartment is destabilized . it is the light at the end of the tunnel for landlords who did conversions .

we owned a bunch of stabilized apartments over looking central park . we bought out the leases of all but two of our tenants and sold the co-ops once they were out.

depending how nuch in turnover an apartment has if it is a stabilized rental and not co-op the rents may very well be at market . it is only long time tenants who might have been there decades that really see any big difference . .
My opinion is that there is a difference between money earned through labor, intellectual property etc (ie your job) and passive income from investments or real estate. Sure a land lord might have to do some mx from time to time and every once in a great while there may be some major work but by in large the total amount of actual work is minimal compared to a day job.


the issue with any inelastic demand curve is there is very little distinction between "market" rate and gouging, the very definition of inelastic demand is that people will be willing to go to the poor house for it because there is very little choise in the matter (ie roof over your head and medical care).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-07-2016, 08:32 PM
 
7,654 posts, read 5,065,257 times
Reputation: 5036
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ Manager View Post
Your theory doesn't match reality. Look at prices of rent controlled areas and you will see you are in magic fairy lala land. Rent control drives prices up not down and not just here in the US but in London it has had the same effect as CA and NY. Rent control hurts newer renters which is why you are seeing CA trying to expand their failing policy instead of abolishing it.
That's because its not being applied correctly, it needs to be absolute without caviat other than condition and location not based on weird stuff like when someone moved in that is political posturing because there was diresion in the legislature but its not true rent control.


True rent control would factor in a land lords costs and cap their profits to prevent gouging from an inelastic demand. Either that or raise taxes and take land via eminent domain to put up govt controlled housing. Either way something has to give or we are going down hill fast.


If this were elastic demand I would have no issues.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 09:08 PM
 
Location: Silicon Valley
18,812 posts, read 32,253,997 times
Reputation: 38559
Quote:
Originally Posted by pittsflyer View Post
I am trying to understand why rent control is not a thing, why isent it wide spread across the various states? Who doesn't want rent controls other than greedy land lords (who are a vast minority of voters)?


Is the crony capitalism really so awful that the elites are able to stone wall such things or are there other unknowns that the everyday person enjoys giving half their take home pay to a land lord for a marginal rental unit?


Do land owners have legislators living in fear that if they cant fleece copious amount of money from the masses then nothing will get built and their state will start to look like a scene out of mad max? Maybe a large portion of the legislators are land lords in various states? I want to put together a well crafted email to my legislator who I have a good relationship with but I want to make sure I am not missing something. My thoughts are that once rent controls are in place sales prices of rental properties will start to reflect that reality (forced down) otherwise no one will buy them. There will be a period of pain where slum lords are holding properties hoping for change rather than selling "cheap" but as long as the vast majority of people want it and the legislation is durable the prices will go down. Then start strictly enforcing blight laws so that if they let the properties go while still hanging on to them the fines get steeper and steeper until it does not make sense to hold the property anymore.


I seriously don't get it.
Well, let's look at the same type of issue as it might relate you and your salary.

What if there was a push to make sure your job paid only half of what you currently are paid?

This would help the economy, etc., in oh so many ways.

So, would you be willing to work for half your current salary, and stay where you currently live, in order to help the current, local economy?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 09:36 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,303,336 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
in most states any rent stabilization programs include big tax hits to the local tax revenue . there are all kinds of tax incentives that go along with agreeing to have rents governed by a board and politics .

the local taxes everyone pays has to make up for those cuts in the budget .

without incentives no one would ever be a landlord . i would never take a job where i couldn't earn market wages . if you want to cap a landlords income with no compensation how about having your own income capped too .

50% of all the housing in nyc is stabilized . but that number is dropping yearly .

after landlords were duped by being told rent stabilization was only to prevent rent gouging and they would always get fair market rents most private buildings went co-op here . the rents were held artificially low for years as the politicians used rent stabilization as a political pawn .

once the original tenant is out the apartment is destabilized . it is the light at the end of the tunnel for landlords who did conversions .

we owned a bunch of stabilized apartments over looking central park . we bought out the leases of all but two of our tenants and sold the co-ops once they were out.

depending how nuch in turnover an apartment has if it is a stabilized rental and not co-op the rents may very well be at market . it is only long time tenants who might have been there decades that really see any big difference . .

Burger flippers earning $8 per hour would be okay with that.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 09:41 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,303,336 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by AZ Manager View Post
Your theory doesn't match reality. Look at prices of rent controlled areas and you will see you are in magic fairy lala land. Rent control drives prices up not down and not just here in the US but in London it has had the same effect as CA and NY. Rent control hurts newer renters which is why you are seeing CA trying to expand their failing policy instead of abolishing it.

Assessment control (Prop 13) hurts newer buyers and helps incumbent buyers (homeowners). Rent control hurts new renters and helps incumbent renters. Why is Prop 13 good and rent control bad?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 09:42 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,303,336 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by mathjak107 View Post
markets are like water and seek their own level , it could be higher it could be lower .

when boston did away with their stabilization laws rents went up . but there is a reason . renovation permits soared . old dingy apartments were gutted and renovated and new always cost more money .

And that was helpful to poor renters how?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 09:45 PM
 
539 posts, read 560,913 times
Reputation: 976
Why shouldn't landlords make profit off of my choices to not rent or my poor money saving choices? They provide a service, I pay for it. I pay for rent, I live here. I literally don't have to deal with ANYTHING. I CHOOSE to replace things when broken if I can afford it, but I don't have to. I replaced the toilet seat last week, I didn't have to, it wasn't new when we moved in, but we plan on living here a couple more years, so we felt we should pay to replace it. Our faucet needs replacing, we might just give the landlord the money to replace it (I don't know what kind she wants it replaced with, it's not my place to place a different faucet.) WE replace our snoke detector batteries (I know that's something that's been argued on here before) But tge refrigerator that's going? I can't afford that. If I lived in my own place and the fridge gave out, I'd have no fridge until tax season, regardless of what time of the year it was.

So, I'm GLAD to pay for the service of a landlord, with them making profit. And my landlord personally comes every week to mow the lawns. Regardless of problems with the neighbors, and sharing walls and floor/ceiling issues, and the smoking issues, it's very convenient for people in my position. 2 years now, and we haven't had a rent increase yet, and we won't go all crazy when it happens. Adding rent control is a horrible idea, it makes the rent soar to crazy prices. That's how rent will increase from my $625 to over $1,000, just to make up for those who have stayed in one spot and refuse to allow their rent to increase.

It's the same type of discussion with raising minimum wage. It's a horrible idea. It hurts more than helps those who the regulations are geared towards.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 09:48 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,303,336 times
Reputation: 9074
Politics of rent control:

Many cities have a majority or near-majority of renters. When rents skyrocket while wages stagnate, rent serfs start grumbling about rent control. This alarms landlords, who RUN to their buddies in the state legislature for a statewide ban on rent control.

Since landlords are flush with cash they can pour into political campaigns, legislators follow the money and pass a statewide ban.

Only California and New York have a near-majority of renters, which is why rent control exists only in California and New York.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 09:50 PM
 
33,016 posts, read 27,303,336 times
Reputation: 9074
Quote:
Originally Posted by MigratingCoconut View Post
Why shouldn't landlords make profit off of my choices to not rent or my poor money saving choices? They provide a service, I pay for it. I pay for rent, I live here. I literally don't have to deal with ANYTHING. I CHOOSE to replace things when broken if I can afford it, but I don't have to. I replaced the toilet seat last week, I didn't have to, it wasn't new when we moved in, but we plan on living here a couple more years, so we felt we should pay to replace it. Our faucet needs replacing, we might just give the landlord the money to replace it (I don't know what kind she wants it replaced with, it's not my place to place a different faucet.) WE replace our snoke detector batteries (I know that's something that's been argued on here before) But tge refrigerator that's going? I can't afford that. If I lived in my own place and the fridge gave out, I'd have no fridge until tax season, regardless of what time of the year it was.

So, I'm GLAD to pay for the service of a landlord, with them making profit. And my landlord personally comes every week to mow the lawns. Regardless of problems with the neighbors, and sharing walls and floor/ceiling issues, and the smoking issues, it's very convenient for people in my position. 2 years now, and we haven't had a rent increase yet, and we won't go all crazy when it happens. Adding rent control is a horrible idea, it makes the rent soar to crazy prices. That's how rent will increase from my $625 to over $1,000, just to make up for those who have stayed in one spot and refuse to allow their rent to increase.

It's the same type of discussion with raising minimum wage. It's a horrible idea. It hurts more than helps those who the regulations are geared towards.

And I'm happy to rent a crummy basement room, or live with 3 or 4 or 5 roommates but that is illegal in many places - which is why the rent is too high for people like me. A level playing field would allow for more housing options and lower rents.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-07-2016, 09:58 PM
 
1,281 posts, read 769,667 times
Reputation: 295
My way of dealing rising rents is finding a smaller and cheaper place that will keep me ahead since I get annual raises.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Real Estate > Renting

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top